To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Self-incrimination.
Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Self-incrimination'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 dissertations / theses for your research on the topic 'Self-incrimination.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse dissertations / theses on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Groberman, Harvey M. "Protection against self-incrimination and the concept of unfairness in the law of evidence." Thesis, University of Oxford, 1989. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.317707.
Full text
2
Gauk, Christina. "Self-incrimination and silence : position of the defendant in England, the United States and Canada." Thesis, University of Cambridge, 1989. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.305442.
Full text
3
Cotton, John, and n/a. "The privilege against self-incrimination in civil proceedings between private parties in Australia and New Zealand : is derivative use immunity the answer?" University of Otago. Faculty of Law, 2007. http://adt.otago.ac.nz./public/adt-NZDU20070815.094307.
Full textAbstract:
This thesis addresses the problem of the privilege against self-incrimination ("the privilege") in civil proceedings between private parties in Australia and New Zealand. This problem has been recognised by judges, law reform bodies and legislators in both countries for twenty years. However, the legislative response has been inadequate.
The privilege is easily confused with other related concepts, particularly the right to silence in criminal proceedings. The reasons for the privilege in civil proceedings are not necessarily the same as for the right to silence. Care is therefore taken to define the terminology and scope of the thesis. It sets out the modern law on the privilege in civil proceedings between private parties. It describes how the privilege causes particular problems in those proceedings. It surveys the literature, finding that most of it concerns the right to silence.
The thesis draws heavily on the history of the privilege. It argues that, although witness privilege came from the common law, the privilege in interlocutory civil proceedings had its origins in the discretionary remedies devised by the courts of equity. They were sensitive to abuse of their remedies. For the same reason, modern prosecutors should not be encouraged to rely excessively upon evidence acquired through compulsory powers.
Derivative use immunity is one of several substitutes suggested for the privilege. The thesis looks at the various substitutes. It concludes that derivative use immunity is the only satisfactory substitute for the privilege in civil proceedings.
Derivative use immunity originated in the United States. The thesis looks closely at the American experience. The history and scope of the Fifth Amendment are discussed in detail, particularly the supposed removal of its protection from documents. This will show that the removal of the privilege from documents is not as simple as law reform bodies in Australia and New Zealand suggest.
Exaggerated claims have been made by Australian prosecutors about the problems caused by derivative use immunity. The claims are examined in the light of American case-law. This shows that an impossible burden is not imposed on prosecutors. The same point emerges when the thesis examines the operation of derivative use immunity under Australian certification procedures since 1995.
Particular procedural and legislative difficulties need to be addressed, particularly when derivative use immunity replaces the privilege in interlocutory proceedings. However, certification by the court has an important advantage. The court�s exercise of its discretion provides the flexibility which automatic statutory immunity lacks.
The question in the title is therefore answered in the affirmative. Derivative use immunity under a statutory certification procedure can provide the answer. Cooperation between the Commonwealth and States may be needed to overcome constitutional difficulties, but most other problems can be overcome if derivative use immunity is given a sound statutory basis.
4
MELLO, BERNARDO CARVALHO DE. "NEMO TENETUR SE DETEGERE PRINCIPLE: PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION AND RIGHT TO SILENCE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL ORDER." PONTIFÍCIA UNIVERSIDADE CATÓLICA DO RIO DE JANEIRO, 2018. http://www.maxwell.vrac.puc-rio.br/Busca_etds.php?strSecao=resultado&nrSeq=36159@1.
Full textAbstract:
PONTIFÍCIA UNIVERSIDADE CATÓLICA DO RIO DE JANEIROCOORDENAÇÃO DE APERFEIÇOAMENTO DO PESSOAL DE ENSINO SUPERIOR
PROGRAMA DE SUPORTE À PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO DE INSTS. DE ENSINO
PROGRAMA DE SUPORTE À PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO DE INSTITUIÇÕES COMUNITÁRIAS DE ENSINO PARTICULARES
O princípio nemo tenetur se detegere, em seu duplo aspecto vedação à autoincriminação e direito ao silêncio, é uma conquista civilizatória das sociedades democráticas. A importância do princípio, muitas vezes não explicitada nas discussões sobre a constitucionalidade dos institutos e leis, é de tamanha monta que, conjuntamente com o princípio da presunção de inocência, forma a base axiológica de todo o sistema processual penal democrático. Contudo, o poder Estatal, diante do apelo popular e em resposta aos altos índices de criminalidade e episódios notórios de corrupção no Brasil tem, nos últimos tempos, a partir de uma continuidade cronológica de legislações, relativizado ou erodido os sustentáculos do princípio nemo tenetur se detegere. Tal postura Estatal consubstancia o que na criminologia se denomina de direito penal do inimigo, que servirá de substrato teórico para explicar o porquê do fenômeno de hipercriminalização e recrudescimento Estatal. A pesquisa visa, portanto, reafirmar o valor do nemo tenetur se detegere, acentuando os casos em que está a sofrer ataques e oferecer, a partir de pesquisa doutrinária e da análise jurisprudencial nacional e estrangeira, possíveis salvaguardas ao princípio com vistas a garantir que o processo penal brasileiro continue a respeitar os direitos individuais inerentes a uma ordem constitucional de fato e não meramente de direito.
The principle nemo tenetur se detegere, in its double aspect privilege against self-incrimination and right to silence, is a civilizational conquest of democratic societies. The importance of this principle, which is often not made explicit in the discussions on the constitutionality of institutes and laws, is so significant that, together with the principle of presumption of innocence, forms the axiological basis of the entire democratic criminal procedural system. However, the State power, in the face of popular appeal and in response to high crime rates and notorious episodes of corruption in Brazil, has recently, from a chronological continuity of legislation, relativized or eroded the pillars of the nemo tenetur se detegere principle. This state posture consubstantiates what in criminology is called the criminal law of the enemy, which will serve as a theoretical substrate to explain the phenomenon of hypercriminalization and State recrudescence. The aim of the research is to reaffirm the value of the nemo tenetur, to highlight the cases in which it is under attack and to offer possible safeguards to the principle, based on jurisprudencial research and national and foreign case analysis, with a view to ensuring that the Brazilian criminal proceeding continues to respect the individual rights inherent in a constitutional order of fact and not merely law.
5
Ebrahim, Suleiman. "The constitutionality of section 60 (11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1997 where an applicant for bail relies on a weak state's case during a section 60(11)(a) application." Diss., University of Pretoria, 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/2263/65645.
Full textAbstract:
In South Africa, as in most jurisdictions which profess to be based on an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, the right against compelled self-incrimination is a guaranteed Constitutional right. This study is prompted by the realization that the right against self-incrimination is being undermined and eroded by an aspect of South Africa’s bail laws. The current study addresses the constitutional validity of section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 in so far as it allows for the admission of incriminating evidence at trial, in contravention of the accused’s right against self-incrimination, which incriminatory evidence was tendered by the applicant during a bail application in circumstances where the applicant was compelled to prove that he would be acquitted at trial where reliance is placed on a weak State’s case in proving exceptional circumstances in compliance with section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. Whilst section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is undoubtedly aimed at combatting crime, the pre-occupation with crime control measures threatens to undermine individual liberty and poses a threat to our Constitutional project of building a human rights culture. I advance an argument which supports the view that section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 is unconstitutional, in the above context, in that it infringes upon the accused’s right against compelled self-incrimination at trial and does not amount to a justifiable limitation on the rights of an accused in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. I also advance an alternative legal remedy aimed at fulfilling the initial mischief which Section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 was designed to prevent in order to bring the section in line with the Constitution and a rights-based society.Mini Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2017.
Procedural Law
LLM
Unrestricted
6
Blackwood, Hayley L. Rogers Richard. "A comparison of Miranda procedures the effects of oral and written administrations on Miranda comprehension /." [Denton, Tex.] : University of North Texas, 2009. http://digital.library.unt.edu/permalink/meta-dc-11057.
Full text
7
AMARAL, THIAGO BOTTINO DO. "FROM THE RIGHT TO SILENCE TO THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION: THE SUPREME COURT AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL GUARANTEES." PONTIFÍCIA UNIVERSIDADE CATÓLICA DO RIO DE JANEIRO, 2008. http://www.maxwell.vrac.puc-rio.br/Busca_etds.php?strSecao=resultado&nrSeq=14970@1.
Full textAbstract:
CONSELHO NACIONAL DE DESENVOLVIMENTO CIENTÍFICO E TECNOLÓGICOA presente tese de doutorado tem por objetivo analisar criticamente a construção pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal de significados para o direito ao silêncio – ou melhor, a garantia de vedação de auto-incriminação – que constitui uma garantia processual penal de assento constitucional. Foram identificados e analisados todos os acórdãos proferidos pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal acerca do tema a fim de examinar os argumentos utilizados na fundamentação das decisões que delimitam o conteúdo da referida garantia,, desde a promulgação da Constituição de 1988 até o dia 31 de dezembro de 2007, para identificar como o Supremo Tribunal Federal construiu um significado que fosse aquém ou além da simples interpretação gramatical da Constituição. A escolha da vedação de autoincriminação como objeto de estudo é resultado do reconhecimento de que essa garantia desempenha um papel estruturante na construção de um sistema punitivo compatível com um Estado democrático de direito. O exame dos julgados indica que esse conteúdo foi construído por meio de diferentes recursos, como o uso de precedentes jurisprudenciais de cortes internacionais e a interpretação a partir dos tratados internacionais de direitos humanos. Mas, sobretudo, o Supremo Tribunal Federal lançou mão do uso de argumentos principiológicos como forma de aproximar o texto constitucional (e o infraconstitucional) dos valores que animam um Estado democrático de direito.
This doctoral thesis aims to examine and criticize the construction by the Brazilian Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal, STF) of a concept to the right to silence – or rather, the privilege against self-incrimination – which is a criminal procedure guarantee, established in the Brazilian Constitution. All judgments of the Brazilian Supreme Court related to the privilege, since the promulgation of the Constitution (October 5, 1988) until December 31, 2007, were identified and analyzed, seeking to identify in what form the Brazilian Supreme Court defined that privilege (behind or beyond simply grammatical interpretation of the Constitution). Choosing the privilege against selfincrimination as the object of study results of the recognition that this right plays a structural role in the construction of a punitive system compatible with a democratic rule of law. Examination of all cases indicates that the privilege content was built through various resources, such as international courts decisions and international human rights treaties. But above all, the Brazilian Supreme Court has used principles arguments as a way to bring the constitutional text closer to the values that animate a democratic rule of law.
8
Heinsohn, Brian D. "Effects of pleading the fifth amendment on juridic decisions." Virtual Press, 1997. http://liblink.bsu.edu/uhtbin/catkey/1045623.
Full textAbstract:
This study examined the effects that a defendant's pleading of the fifth amendment during a criminal trial had on simulated juror's decisions regarding verdict, likelihood of guilt, certainty of guilt, sentence severity, and perceptions of the defendant's character. One hundred fifty-five undergraduate psychology students read one of three versions of a transcript, based on a trial of a man charged with theft, in which the defendant did not plead the fifth (control), plead the fifth, or plead the fifth possibly for reasons other than hiding involvement in the crime (i.e. having an affair). Results showed that the two fifth amendment conditions found the defendant to be more likely guilty than the control condition. Also, a factor analysis suggested that an honest and a relaxed dimension best described the defendant's character. In addition, it was discovered that perceptions of the defendant's honesty mediated the effects of perceived likelihood of guilt.Department of Psychological Science
9
Smith, Brooke A. "Pleading the fifth the effect of a defendant's ethnicity and prior record /." To access this resource online via ProQuest Dissertations and Theses @ UTEP, 2008. http://0-proquest.umi.com.lib.utep.edu/login?COPT=REJTPTU0YmImSU5UPTAmVkVSPTI=&clientId=2515.
Full text
10
Aselmann, Maike. "Die Selbstbelastungs- und Verteidigungsfreiheit : ein Beitrag zu den Garantiewirkungen von Verfahrensrechten im Hinblick auf die Beweiswürdigung, Strafzumessung und Strafbarkeit des Beschuldigten im Strafprozess /." Frankfurt am Main [u.a.] : Lang, 2004. http://www.gbv.de/dms/sbb-berlin/389589470.pdf.
Full text
11
Hazelwood, Lisa L. Rogers Richard. "Deficits in Miranda comprehension and reasoning the effects of substance use and attention deficits /." [Denton, Tex.] : University of North Texas, 2009. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc12132.
Full text
12
Mabanga, Ghislain Mabanga Monga. "Le témoin assisté devant la Cour pénale internationale : contribution à l’évolution du droit international pénal." Thesis, Paris 10, 2016. http://www.theses.fr/2016PA100151.
Full textAbstract:
À la suite d’une décision orale rendue le 28 janvier 2009 par la Chambre de première instance I dans l'affaire Lubanga, la Cour pénale internationale a institué un nouvel acteur du procès pénal international : le témoin susceptible d'auto-incrimination qui, à ce titre, est assisté d'un conseil. Ce « témoin assisté » a en commun avec le suspect leur suspicion, et, avec le témoin ordinaire, leur comparution à l’audience ès qualité de témoins. Il n’est cependant ni totalement un suspect – parce que non poursuivable devant la Cour – ni totalement un témoin, parce que notamment impliqué dans la procédure principale. L’évolution de cet acteur singulier du procès pénal international aura eu le mérite de permettre à la Cour de revisiter des notions classiques du droit international pénal. Grâce à lui, la qualité de « parties » n’est plus une forteresse réservée à l’accusation et à la défense. Le témoin ordinaire, considéré comme tiers passif à l’instance, partage désormais la barre avec un « témoin » actif pouvant diligenter des procédures « détachables » de la procédure principale. En sept ans d’existence, le témoin assisté a tellement impacté la procédure pénale internationale qu’une révision des textes fondamentaux de la Cour s’impose pour mettre un terme à la cacophonie jurisprudentielle des chambres sur l’étendue de ses droits et obligationsFollowing an oral decision given by the Trial Chamber I in the Lubanga case, the International Criminal Court has introduced a new player into international criminal cases: the self-incriminating witness, who is assisted by a counsel. This "assisted witness", like the suspect, is under suspicion, and like an ordinary witness appears before the Court to testify. However, he is neither completely a suspect, since he cannot be convicted by the Court, nor completely a witness, since he is implicated in the criminal proceedings. The evolution of the role of this singular player in international criminal cases has given the Court the opportunity of reviewing traditional notions of international criminal law. Thanks to this situation, the status of the different parties is no longer restricted to prosecution and defense. The ordinary witness, considered as a passive third party in the trial, now shares the stand with an active witness who is able to speed up proceedings that are separable from the main proceedings. In seven years of existence, the assisted witness has had such an impact on criminal proceedings that it has become necessary to revise the core texts of the Court in order to put an end to the legal confusion among the different chambers regarding the extent of this witness's rights and obligations
13
Araujo, Rochester Oliveira. "O direito fundamental contra a autoincrimina??o: a an?lise a partir de uma teoria do Processo Penal Constitucional." Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, 2013. http://repositorio.ufrn.br:8080/jspui/handle/123456789/13997.
Full textAbstract:
Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T14:27:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
RochesterOA_DISSERT.pdf: 1967968 bytes, checksum: e042fe7c363667513adbe806fe52d94f (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2013-11-25Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior
The right against self-incrimination is a fundamental right that works in the criminal prosecution, and therefore deserves a study supported by the general theory of criminal procedure. The right has a vague origin, and despite the various historical accounts only arises when there is a criminal procedure structured that aims to limit the State?s duty-power to punish. The only system of criminal procedure experienced that reconciles with seal self-incrimination is the accusatory model. The inquisitorial model is based on the construction of a truth and obtaining the confession at any cost, and is therefore incompatible with the right in study. The consecration of the right arises with the importance that fundamental rights have come to occupy in the Democratic Constitutional States. In the Brazilian experience before 1988 was only possible to recognize that self-incrimination represented a procedural burden for accused persons. Despite thorough debate in the Constituent Assembly, the right remains consecrated in a textual formula that?s closer to the implementation made by the Supreme Court of the United States, known as "Miranda warnings", than the text of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that established originally the right against self-incrimination with a constitutional status. However, the imprecise text does not prevent the consecration of the principle as a fundamental right in Brazilian law. The right against self-incrimination is a right that should be observed in the Criminal Procedure and relates to several of his canons, such as the the presumption of not guilty, the accusatory model, the distribution of the burden of proof, and especially the right of defense. Because it a fundamental right, the prohibition of self-incrimination deserves a proper study to her constitutional nature. For the definition of protected persons is important to build a material concept of accused, which is different of the formal concept over who is denounced on the prosecution. In the objective area of protection, there are two objects of protection of the norm: the instinct of self-preservation of the subject and the ability to self-determination. Configuring essentially a evidence rule in criminal procedure, the analysis of the case should be based on standards set previously to indicate respect for the right. These standard include the right to information of the accused, the right to counsel and respect the voluntary participation. The study of violations cases, concentrated on the element of voluntariness, starting from the definition of what is or is not a coercion violative of self-determination. The right faces new challenges that deserve attention, especially the fight against terrorism and organized crime that force the development of tools, resources and technologies about proves, methods increasingly invasive and hidden, and allow the use of information not only for criminal prosecution, but also for the establishment of an intelligence strategy in the development of national and public security
O direito contra a autoincrimina??o ? um direito fundamental que incide sobre a persecu??o criminal, e por isso merece um estudo apropriado amparado pela teoria geral do processo penal. O direito possui uma origem remota imprecisa. Apesar dos relatos hist?ricos mais diversos, apenas surge quando existe um processo penal estruturado que tem como objetivo a limita??o do dever-poder de punir do Estado. O ?nico sistema de processo penal experimentado que se compatibiliza com a veda??o a autoincrimina??o ? o modelo acusat?rio. O modelo inquisitivo baseia-se na constru??o de uma verdade e obtens?o da confiss?o a qualquer custo, e por isso ? incompat?vel com o direito em estudo. A consagra??o do direito surge com a import?ncia que os direitos fundamentais passaram a ter nos Estados Democr?ticos Constitucionais. Na experi?ncia brasileira, antes de 1988 somente era poss?vel reconhecer que a autoincrimina??o representava um ?nus processual ao acusado. Apesar do debate aprofundado na Assembl?ia Constituinte, o direito restou consagrado em uma f?rmula textual que mais se aproxima da concretiza??o feita pela Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos, conhecido como avisos de Miranda , do que do texto da Quinta Emenda da Constitui??o Americana que estabeleceu originariamente em sede constitucional o direito contra a autoincrimina??o. Todavia, a imprecis?o textual n?o impede a consagra??o do direito como norma fundamental no ordenamento jur?dico brasileiro. A veda??o de autoincrimina??o ? um direito que deve ser observado no Processo Penal e se relaciona com diversos de seus c?nones, tais como o a presun??o de n?o culpabilidade, o modelo acusat?rio, a distribui??o do ?nus probat?rio e especialmente o exerc?cio do direito de ampla defesa. Por ser um direito fundamental, a veda??o de autoincrimina??o merece um estudo adequado a sua natureza constitucional. Para a defini??o dos sujeitos protegidos ? importante a constru??o de um conceito material de acusado, que n?o se confunde com o conceito formal daquele denunciado na a??o penal. No ?mbito de prote??o objetivo, dois bens jur?dicos s?o o objeto de prote??o da norma: o instinto de autopreserva??o do sujeito e a capacidade de autodetermina??o. Configurando essencialmente em uma regra quanto as provas no Processo Penal, a an?lise do caso concreto deve se basear em crit?rios previamente fixados para indicar o respeito ao direito. Esses crit?rios s?o estabelecidos, incluindo o direito de informa??o do acusado, o acompanhamento por defensor t?cnico e o respeito a voluntariedade na participa??o. O estudo das hip?teses de viola??o se concentram no elemento da voluntariedade, a partir da defini??o do que consiste ou n?o em coer??o violadora da autodetermina??o. O direito enfrenta novos desafios que merecem aten??o, com destaque para o combate ao terrorismo e a criminalidade organizada que for?am ao desenvolvimento de ferramentas, meios probat?rios e tecnologias cada vez mais invasivas e ocultas e permitem a utiliza??o das informa??es n?o somente para a persecu??o criminal, mas tamb?m para o estabelecimento de uma intelig?ncia no desenvolvimento da seguran?a nacional e p?blica
14
Millani, Márcio Rached. "Direito à não autoincriminação: limites, conteúdo e aplicação - uma visão jurisprudencial." Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, 2015. https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/6784.
Full textAbstract:
Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:23:41Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
Marcio Rached Millani.pdf: 1174248 bytes, checksum: a7b10e5dc4901736fd7dbffc2c9099f5 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2015-04-28Several countries adopted in their Constitutions or in their infra-laws the right to not self-incrimination. This right is also guaranteed by several international treaties which were incorporated to the internal laws of several countries, including Brazil. It can be observed that the texts adopted by the countries are similar and include, in general, the right of the investigation or the accused remain silent, that is, the right not to testify against themselves in criminal investigation or proceeding instituted for the determination of a particular offense. In short, investigated or defendants are not compelled to assist in the production of evidence in cases filed against them. While texts of legal provisions that enshrine the right to self-incrimination are similar and in some cases almost identical, it is observed that our jurisprudence conferred much greater extension to the right than that observed in comparative law coverage, and in some cases this expansion eventually become ineffective legal provisions in force, as happened with the recent sealing of the use of certain alcohol tests for evidence of intoxication. Several arguments can be raised to try to explain why the right to not self-incrimination have become an almost absolute right, among them: an erroneous interpretation of its contents; not weighting of conflicting values in the case concert; the notion that the individual s body cannot, under any circumstances, be used as a test object; the exaggerated importance given to individual rights; and the confusion between authority and authoritarianism that took place in our society after the end of the dictatorial regime
Vários países adotam em suas Constituições ou em suas leis infraconstitucionais o direito à não autoincriminação. Tal direito é também garantido por vários tratados internacionais que se incorporaram às legislações internas dos vários países, entre eles o Brasil. Pode-se observar que as redações adotadas pelos países são similares e abrangem, de modo geral, o direito de o investigado ou o réu permanecerem em silêncio, vale dizer, o direito de não deporem contra si mesmos em investigação ou processo penal instaurados para a apuração de determinado delito. Em suma, não são os investigados ou réus compelidos a auxiliar na produção da prova em processos contra eles instaurados. Conquanto as redações dos dispositivos legais que consagram o direito à não autoincriminação sejam similares e em alguns casos quase idênticas, observa-se que a nossa jurisprudência conferiu ao referido direito uma abrangência muito maior do que a observada no direito comparado, sendo que em algumas hipóteses tal ampliação acabou por tornar sem efeito dispositivos legais em vigor, como ocorreu com a recente vedação da utilização de determinados testes de alcoolemia para comprovação da embriaguez. Várias hipóteses podem ser levantadas para tentar explicar a razão de o direito à não autoincriminação ter se tornado um direito quase absoluto, entre elas: uma errônea interpretação de seu conteúdo; a não ponderação dos valores em conflito no caso concreto; a noção de que o corpo do indivíduo não pode, em hipótese nenhuma, ser utilizado como objeto de prova; a exagerada importância conferida aos direitos individuais; e a confusão entre autoridade e autoritarismo que ocorreu na nossa sociedade após o término do regime ditatorial
15
Yokoyama, Marcia Caceres Dias. "O direito ao silêncio no interrogatório." Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, 2007. https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/7829.
Full textAbstract:
Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:26:15Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
Marcia Caceres Dias Yokoyama.pdf: 787524 bytes, checksum: e05abda79ee5e37b0856957f755a777d (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2007-11-07Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
The modern Criminal Lawsuit has the remarkable characteristic of looking at the imputed person as someone who has rights, to privilege the biggest principle of the human being, conquered gradually. To start from the comprehension of the basis of the right to the silence, campared to the guided principle of the Democratic State of Right, emanates the logical of the doctrinal, the Legislator and the applicator of right to get together in order to give an exact application to the institute and its correspondings. The interrogation of an accused in a penal lawsuit, chance for him to be heard by the authority to present his version of the facts and to exercise his right of self-defense, since the old times, has changed a lot in its penal lawsuit system according to the ideological-social-cultural mentality of the historical moment. But the evolution of Science and Philosophy made new methods of investigation to come out. The accused started to be seen not as an evidence object but as someone who had rights. The right to remain silent started to be accepted as assurance of privacy and mainly as deduction of the principle against the self-incrimination. The study of principles which honor the right of being silent and its reflexes, and also of the investigation, makes evident the need of a discussion around the subject. It happens through the right of information, the supposed innocence, the contradiction, the wide defense, the prohibition of illicit evidences. The right to remain silent extends to all inquired person at the moment of his prision and in another case, by public officers, and also in the police investigation phase, in the instruction of the penal lawsuit and of parliamentary and administrative procedures, even when he is the witness or concerning to self-incriminative facts. So, it works in every moment that the inquired individual finds himself in front of answers which can harm him. It s a subjective public right that prevents disadvantageous interpretations against the one who is remaining silent. For its full exercise, it is necessary the information of this right to the titular and its extension as an exercise of free and aware will. The right of not being obliged to prove against himself permits to the accused not to help in producing evidences, translation of the right to preserve the privacy and inertness and specially the imputed person s spontaneous acts. And this work treats all this complexity in a unpretentious way
O moderno direito processual penal tem a destacada característica de avistar o imputado como sujeito de direitos a privilegiar o princípio maior da dignidade da pessoa humana, conquistado paulatinamente. A partir da compreensão do fundamento da garantia do direito ao silêncio, em cotejo com os princípios norteadores do Estado Democrático de Direito, emana a lógica da consonância do doutrinador, legislador e operador do direito de unirem-se para dar uma exata aplicação ao instituto com suas vertentes. O interrogatório do acusado no processo penal, oportunidade em que será ouvido pela autoridade para apresentar sua versão dos fatos e exercer seu direito de autodefesa, desde os tempos remotos, sofreu grandes alterações na sistemática processual de acordo com a mentalidade ideológico-social-cultural do momento histórico. Mas a evolução da ciência fez surgir novos métodos de investigação. O acusado passou a ser visto não como objeto da prova, mas como sujeito de direitos. O direito de silenciar passou a ser aceito como garantia da intimidade e, principalmente, como corolário do princípio contra a autoincriminação. O estudo dos princípios que prestigiam o direito ao silêncio e seus reflexos, bem como do interrogatório, evidencia a necessidade de debater o tema. Realiza-se através do direito à informação, da presunção de inocência, do contraditório, da ampla defesa, da proibição de provas ilícitas. O direito ao silêncio estende-se a toda pessoa questionada no momento da sua prisão e fora desta, por agentes públicos, bem assim na fase investigativa policial, na instrução do processo penal e dos procedimentos parlamentares e administrativos, mesmo quando estiver na qualidade de testemunha quanto a fatos auto-incriminatórios. Cabe em todo momento em que o indivíduo perquirido vê-se diante de respostas que possam prejudicá-lo. Trata-se de direito público subjetivo impeditivo da interpretação desfavorável contra aquele que silencia. Para seu pleno exercício, faz-se necessária a informação tanto deste direito ao titular como da amplitude de seu alcance como exercício da vontade livre e consciente, para que possa ser exercido plenamente. O direito de não ser obrigado a fazer prova contra si permite ao imputado não colaborar na produção da prova, tradução do exercício do direito de preservação da intimidade e inércia e, sobretudo, do agir espontâneo do imputado. É essa a complexidade tratada no presente trabalho
16
Roles, Philippa Jane. "Nemo Tenetur Prodere Seipsum : misinterpreted and misapplied : arguments for removal of the privilege against self-incrimination on the grounds that it has been misapplied and misinterpreted, and specifically that it represents an unnecessary and unreason." Thesis, University of Exeter, 2007. http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.440336.
Full text
17
Álvarez, Echagüe Juan Manuel. "El Estado de Inocencia y la Garantía de la no Autoincriminación en Materia Tributaria: Un Análisis a Partir de la Conexidad Entre el Procedimiento Administrativo y el Proceso Penal." Derecho & Sociedad, 2015. http://repositorio.pucp.edu.pe/index/handle/123456789/119069.
Full textAbstract:
In this article, the author attempts to establish the limitations and consequences resulting from the use of evidence that, being obtained from the exercise of the powers of investigation and enforcement that owns the Treasury, then is carried to the tax criminal proceedings, as the basis for the complaint made by the Tax Administration. For this, the author approaches the taxpayer’s right against self-incrimination (or not to incriminate himself ) as well as some general concepts of the state of innocence, and then analyzes how these concepts are related to the tax law, specifically with the evidence inside it. The article also contains a number of ideas that attempts to summarize the thoughts and positions taken on the issue in current doctrine and jurisprudence in Argentina, establishing in turn, parallel situations and comparisons with the Peruvian tax system.
18
Sharf, Allyson J. "Effects of Immaturity on Juveniles’ Miranda Comprehension and Reasoning." Thesis, University of North Texas, 2015. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc804854/.
Full textAbstract:
Over the last several decades, researchers have documented how impaired reasoning by adult offenders impeded the intelligent waiver of Miranda rights. Logically, it stands to reason that juveniles – who are developmentally less mature and have less life experience than their adult counterparts – would possess even greater impairment, thereby heightening their risk for invalid Miranda waivers. Juvenile Miranda research supports this notion; with some researchers finding that psychosocial maturity, among other factors, affect a juvenile’s understanding of their rights. Yet, relatively few studies have examined its relation to Miranda reasoning and decision-making. Thus, the current study investigated the specific role of maturity in juveniles’ Miranda comprehension and reasoning. Participants included 236 legally-involved juveniles recruited from either a juvenile detention center or a juvenile justice alternative education program. The effects of psychosocial maturity were examined on a variety of Miranda-related measures and assessed a broad range of Miranda abilities. It was found that, in general, immature juveniles performed more poorly on all Miranda measures as compared to their mature counterparts. However, the impact of maturity varied considerably depending on the ability. Specifically, maturity was most important in the context of Miranda reasoning. As a novel addition to the literature, the current study also investigated the effects of developmental timing on maturity (i.e., immaturity-delayed versus immaturity-expected) on Miranda abilities.
19
Winningham, Darby B. "Miranda Comprehension and Reasoning: An Investigation of Miranda Abilities in Adult Inpatients." Thesis, University of North Texas, 2017. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc984150/.
Full textAbstract:
Nearly 700,000 suspects with mental disorders are arrested and Mirandized each year. The current study systematically examined the effects of cognitive deficits and psychological symptoms on both Miranda comprehension and reasoning. The current sample was comprised of 85 adult psychiatric inpatients recruited from University Behavioral Health (UBH), a private psychiatric hospital in North Texas. Unexpectedly, most inpatients demonstrated pervasive deficits in their immediate recall of a representative Miranda warning, omitting approximately four-fifths of its content. In addition, the majority of inpatients evidenced damaging errors in their reasoning about waiver decisions. As a result, 64.7% waived and subsequently confessed after only a 3-5 minute interrogation. Interestingly, impaired verbal ability but not the severity of their symptoms predicted greater deficits in Miranda comprehension.
20
Blackwood, Hayley L. "A Comparison of Miranda Procedures: The Effects of Oral and Written Administrations on Miranda Comprehension." Thesis, University of North Texas, 2009. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc11057/.
Full textAbstract:
Millions of custodial suspects waive their rights each year without the benefit of legal counsel. The question posed to psychologists in disputed Miranda waivers is whether this waiver decision was, knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Mental health professionals must be aware of potential barriers to Miranda comprehension to provide expert opinions regarding a defendant's competency to waive rights. The current study examined how Miranda warning reading level, length, and method of administration affects Miranda comprehension. Recently arrested detainees at Grayson County Jail were administered oral and written Miranda warnings from the Miranda Statements Scale (MSS; Rogers, 2005) to measure their comprehension of the warnings. Surprisingly low levels of Miranda comprehension were found for most warnings. For all warnings at or above 8th grade, a substantial minority (27.1% - 39.6%) of defendants exhibited failed (i.e., < 50% understanding) Miranda comprehension. Regardless of other variables, oral administrations resulted in a substantially larger number of defendants with failed Miranda comprehension. Implications for public policy and clinical practice are discussed.
21
Hazelwood, Lisa L. "Deficits in Miranda Comprehension and Reasoning: The Effects of Substance Use and Attention Deficits." Thesis, University of North Texas, 2009. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc12132/.
Full textAbstract:
Each year, an estimated 318,000 defendants who do not comprehend the Miranda warnings waive their rights and provide incriminating evidence without the protection of counsel (Rogers, 2008), which make Miranda-related competencies one of the most pervasive pretrial issues. A wide range of issues could potentially affect an individual's capacity to provide a knowing and intelligent waiver. Previous Miranda research has focused narrowly on the effects of cognitive and developmental factors. The current study added to the Miranda literature by examining the impact of two highly prevalent conditions found in correctional populations, attention deficits and substance abuse. Adult defendants in custody (N = 118) were evaluated within 36 hours of arrest in order to assess both chronic psychological disorders and situational variables. Results indicate that attention deficits have a significant impact on defendants' ability to provide a knowing Miranda waiver, whereas substance use profoundly affected their reasoning about Miranda waiver decisions. This study represents the first systematic investigation of the effect of transient mental states on Miranda-related abilities with criminal defendants. Important implications for forensic practice are addressed.
22
Trois, Neto Paulo Mário Canabarro. "O direito fundamental à não-autoincriminação e a influência do silêncio do acusado no convencimento do juiz penal." reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UFRGS, 2009. http://hdl.handle.net/10183/142763.
Full textAbstract:
O direito fundamental à não-autoincriminação encontra seu fundamento jurídicoconstitucional na conexão dos princípios constitucionais da dignidade humana, do procedimento correto, da ampla defesa e da presunção de inocência. Todas as condutas passivas cuja adoção diga respeito a uma opção tomada pelo acusado na condição de sujeito processual – dentre as quais o exercício passivo da autodefesa no interrogatório judicial – estão prima facie protegidas pelo direito de não se autoincriminar. O problema da influência do silêncio do acusado no interrogatório judicial apresenta uma colisão do direito à nãoautoincriminação com o bem coletivo da eficiência da justiça penal e exige, consequentemente, soluções de acordo com os critérios da teoria dos princípios e da argumentação jusfundamental. A busca da concordância prática dos princípios colidentes exige a consideração de que, embora o comportamento processual do acusado não esteja sujeito a valorações, a omissão do acusado em responder ao interrogatório pode privar a defesa de uma oportunidade para contribuir à refutação ou ao enfraquecimento do grau de confirmação da hipótese acusatória.The fundamental right against self-incrimination has its legal-constitutional basis in the connection of the constitutional principles of human dignity, fair trial, ample defense against criminal charges and presumption of innocence. All the passive conducts of which adoption refers to a choice of the accused in the condition of subject of the process – such as the passive exercise of self-defense at the examination – are prima facie protected by the right against self incrimination. The issue of the charged’s silence influence in the judicial examination presents a collision of the right against self incrimination with the collective good of the criminal justice efficiency and demands, therefore, solutions according to the criteria of principles theory and fundamental-legal arguing. The search for practical compliance of the colliding principles requires considering that although the processual behavior of the charged is not submitted to judgments of value, the omission of the accused in answering the examination may deprive defense the opportunity to contribute in denying or minimizing the confirmation degree of the accusatory hypothesis.
23
Osteris, Agnes. "Teisė savęs nekaltinti ir jos įgyvendinimo ypatumai baudžiamojoje byloje." Master's thesis, Lithuanian Academic Libraries Network (LABT), 2013. http://vddb.laba.lt/obj/LT-eLABa-0001:E.02~2013~D_20130205_091303-05567.
Full textAbstract:
Teisė nekaltinti savęs, apimanti draudimą versti duoti parodymus prieš save, savo šeimos narius ar artimus giminaičius - tai kiekvieno asmens konstitucinė garantija, užtikrinanti žmogaus ir valstybės santykių suderinamumą šiandieninėje konstitucinėje visuomenėje sprendžiant teisingumo klausimus. Asmuo turi teisę apginti save ir savo artimuosius nuo bet kokio pobūdžio ar sunkumo kaltinimo.
Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare principas kildinamas iš žmogaus orumo principo ir teisės į laisvą asmens vystymąsi, todėl šis principas turi būti aiškinamas neatsiejamai nuo kitų konstitucinių principų ar nuostatų, susijusių su teisingumo, draudimo piktnaudžiauti valdžia samprata, nukentėjusiųjų nuo nusikalstamų veikų bei kitų proceso subjektų interesų apsauga. Magistro baigiamajame darbe pateikiama teisės nekaltinti savęs analizė kitų konstitucinių principų kontekste.
Skirtingose šalyse draudimo versti duoti parodymus prieš save principo, taikomo siekiant apsaugoti įtariamųjų ir liudytojų procesinius interesus, veikimo mechanizmas nėra vienodas. Priklausomai nuo baudžiamųjų procesinių santykių konstrukcijos bei nuo šiuose santykiuose vyraujančio teisinio reguliavimo metodo ir teisinio proceso principų, šios garantijos pobūdis ir apimtis skirtingose baudžiamojo proceso teisės doktrinose vertinami nevienodai. Tačiau, tiek bendrosios, tiek kontinentinės teisės sistemose draudimas versti duoti parodymus prieš save ar savo artimą vertinamas kaip valstybės nustatytas imunitetas, apsaugantis nuo... [toliau žr. visą tekstą]The right of non-self-incrimination, that includes prohibition to compel to give evidence against oneself, family members or close relatives - is every person's constitutional guarantee to ensure human and public relations compatibility in today's constitutional society, dealing with justice issues. A person has the right to defend himself and his relatives from any type or severity of accusation. Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare principle derived from the principle of human dignity and the right to the free development of the individual. Bearing this in mind, this principle must be interpreted through other constitutional principles or provisions relating justice, concept of prohibition of power abuse, interests protection of victims and other entities of process. Master's thesis provides the analysis of the right of non-self-incrimination in the context of other constitutional principles. In different countries the mechanism of functioning of the principle of the prohibition to compel to give evidence against oneself, applicable in order to protect suspects and witnesses interests in proceedings, is not the same. Depending on the criminal procedural relations structures and prevailing legal regulation method in these relations, the legal process principles, the nature and scope of this guarantee is treated differently in various criminal law doctrines. However, in both common and civil law systems the prohibition to compel to give evidence against oneself and family members... [to full text]
24
Kardimis, Théofanis. "La chambre criminelle de la Cour de cassation face à l’article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme : étude juridictionnelle comparée (France-Grèce)." Thesis, Lyon, 2017. http://www.theses.fr/2017LYSE3004.
Full textAbstract:
La première partie de l’étude est consacrée à l’invocation, intra et extra muros, du droit à un procès équitable. Sont analysés ainsi, dans un premier temps, l’applicabilité directe de l’article 6 et la subsidiarité de la Convention par rapport au droit national et de la Cour Européenne des Droits de l’Homme par rapport aux juridictions nationales. Le droit à un procès équitable étant un droit jurisprudentiel, l’étude se focalise, dans un second temps, sur l’invocabilité des arrêts de la Cour Européenne et plus précisément sur l’invocabilité directe de l’arrêt qui constate une violation du droit à un procès équitable dans une affaire mettant en cause l’Etat et l’invocabilité de l’interprétation conforme à l’arrêt qui interprète l’article 6 dans une affaire mettant en cause un Etat tiers. L’introduction dans l’ordre juridique français et hellénique de la possibilité de réexamen de la décision pénale définitive rendue en violation de la Convention a fait naitre un nouveau droit d’accès à la Cour de cassation lequel trouve son terrain de prédilection aux violations de l’article 6 et constitue peut-être le pas le plus important pour le respect du droit à un procès équitable après l’acceptation (par la France et la Grèce) du droit de recours individuel. Quant au faible fondement de l’autorité de la chose interprétée par la Cour Européenne, qui est d’ailleurs un concept d’origine communautaire, cela explique pourquoi un dialogue indirect entre la Cour Européenne et la Cour de cassation est possible sans pour autant changer en rien l’invocabilité de l’interprétation conforme et le fait que l’existence d’un précédent oblige la Cour de cassation à motiver l’interprétation divergente qu’elle a adoptée.La seconde partie de l’étude, qui est plus volumineuse, est consacrée aux garanties de bonne administration de la justice (article 6§1), à la présomption d’innocence (article 6§2), aux droits qui trouvent leur fondement conventionnel dans l’article 6§1 mais leur fondement logique dans la présomption d’innocence et aux droits de la défense (article 6§3). Sont ainsi analysés le droit à un tribunal indépendant, impartial et établi par la loi, le délai raisonnable, le principe de l’égalité des armes, le droit à une procédure contradictoire, le droit de la défense d’avoir la parole en dernier, la publicité de l’audience et du prononcé des jugements et arrêts, l’obligation de motivation des décisions, la présomption d’innocence, dans sa dimension procédurale et personnelle, le « droit au mensonge », le droit de l’accusé de se taire et de ne pas contribuer à son auto-incrimination, son droit d’être informé de la nature et de la cause de l’accusation et de la requalification envisagée des faits, son droit au temps et aux facilités nécessaires à la préparation de la défense, y compris notamment la confidentialité de ses communications avec son avocat et le droit d’accès au dossier, son droit de comparaître en personne au procès, le droit de la défense avec ou sans l’assistance d’un avocat, le droit de l’accusé d’être représenté en son absence par son avocat, le droit à l’assistance gratuite d’un avocat lorsque la situation économique de l’accusé ne permet pas le recours à l’assistance d’un avocat mais les intérêts de la justice l’exigent, le droit d’interroger ou faire interroger les témoins à charge et d’obtenir la convocation et l’interrogation des témoins à décharge dans les mêmes conditions que les témoins à charge et le droit à l’interprétation et à la traduction des pièces essentielles du dossier. L’analyse est basée sur la jurisprudence strasbourgeoise et centrée sur la position qu’adoptent la Cour de cassation française et l’AréopageThe first party of the study is dedicated to the invocation of the right to a fair trial intra and extra muros and, on this basis, it focuses on the direct applicability of Article 6 and the subsidiarity of the Convention and of the European Court of Human Rights. Because of the fact that the right to a fair trial is a ‘‘judge-made law’’, the study also focuses on the invocability of the judgments of the European Court and more precisely on the direct invocability of the European Court’s judgment finding that there has been a violation of the Convention and on the request for an interpretation in accordance with the European Court’s decisions. The possibility of reviewing the criminal judgment made in violation of the Convention has generated a new right of access to the Court of cassation which particularly concerns the violations of the right to a fair trial and is probably the most important step for the respect of the right to a fair trial after enabling the right of individual petition. As for the weak conventional basis of the authority of res interpretata (“autorité de la chose interprétée”), this fact explains why an indirect dialogue between the ECHR and the Court of cassation is possible but doesn’t affect the applicant’s right to request an interpretation in accordance with the Court’s decisions and the duty of the Court of cassation to explain why it has decided to depart from the (non-binding) precedent.The second party of the study is bigger than the first one and is dedicated to the guarantees of the proper administration of justice (Article 6§1), the presumption of innocence (Article 6§2), the rights which find their conventional basis on the Article 6§1 but their logical explanation to the presumption of innocence and the rights of defence (Article 6§3). More precisely, the second party of the study is analyzing the right to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law, the right to a hearing within a reasonable time, the principle of equality of arms, the right to adversarial proceedings, the right of the defence to the last word, the right to a public hearing and a public pronouncement of the judgement, the judge’s duty to state the reasons for his decision, the presumption of innocence, in both its procedural and personal dimensions, the accused’s right to lie, his right to remain silent, his right against self-incrimination, his right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation and the potential re-characterisation of the facts, his right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of the defence, including in particular the access to the case-file and the free and confidential communication with his lawyer, his right to appear in person at the trial, his right to defend either in person or through legal assistance, his right to be represented by his counsel, his right to free legal aid if he hasn’t sufficient means to pay for legal assistance but the interests of justice so require, his right to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him and his right to the free assistance of an interpreter and to the translation of the key documents. The analysis is based on the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and focuses on the position taken by the French and the Greek Court of Cassation (Areopagus) on each one of the above mentioned rights
25
Huang, Yi-Hsin, and 黃奕欣. "The Application of Privilege against Self-Incrimination." Thesis, 2019. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/eq2q56.
Full textAbstract:
碩士國立臺灣大學
科際整合法律學研究所
107
The privilege against self-incrimination is well recognized in modern jurisdictions. However, the scope and rationale for the privilege lack clarification. This paper begins with the important cases of the Supreme Court of the United States and the European Court of Human Rights, and then analyzes the meaning of four basic elements of the privilege (“testimonial evidence”, “compulsion”, “incrimination” and “persons”). After that, this paper introduces the theory of epistemic authority which justifies the scope of the privilege. Finally, this paper applies the privilege against self-incrimination to two fields: physical examination and obligation to co-operate.
26
Vali, Hyder B. "Self - incrimination and the supreme court of India." Thesis, 1995. http://hdl.handle.net/2009/3219.
Full text
27
KO, HUNG-YI, and 柯鴻毅. "A Study on The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination." Thesis, 2017. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/gdx3ww.
Full textAbstract:
碩士東吳大學
法律學系
105
The core concept of The Principle of the Presumption of Innocence is: “Prior to a final conviction through trial, an accused is presumed to be innocent.” The reason of it, simply put, is to avoid wrongful detentions and executions. When the prosecutor, through the reports of the media, prosecuted a fact of crime, the general public often would immediately have the biased impression of “guilty”. As a result, to avoid the judges having the biased impression toward the accused before trial, it is necessary for the The Code of Criminal Procedure to provide The Principle of the Presumption of Innocence so that the judges must treat the accused fairly and neutrally. It would allow the accused to receive a fair trial and prevent the wrongful detentions and executions. The Principle of the Presumption of Innocence has two legal effects. One is the responsibility of prosecutors for presenting evidences, and the other is the accused’s privilege against self-incrimination. As for the responsibility of prosecutors for presenting evidences, the prosecutors, as an accuser, have substantial responsibility for presenting the evidences of the accused criminal facts. In addition, according to section 161 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutors have the responsibility of presenting the evidences and convincing the court. However, as a neutral third party in a trial, the court only examines the evidences submitted by the prosecutor to determine if the criminal facts really exist or not, and according to paragraph 2 section 163 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, the court shall not ex officio investigate evidences that is against the accused. As for the accused’s privilege against self-incrimination, the accused is not responsible of “proving its own innocence”, and also has the right against “self-incrimination”. That is, during the whole process of trial, the accused not only does not have to bear any burden of proof but the court shall not ask the accused to present any evidence to prove his or her innocence. In addition, the accused also has the right to remain silence, the court may not use any unjust method to retrieve the confession of the accused. Chapter two of this thesis is mainly discussing the fundamental legal principle, efficiency and the difficulties of the current legal regulation of the Principle of Presumption of Innocence. Chapter three is mainly discussing the content of the prosecutor’s burden of proof and the reasonable allocation of duty and power between prosecutors and courts. Chapter four is mainly discussing the current status and trend of the Principle of Presumption of Innocence, and the difficulties the current existing law faces. Key words: Presumption of Innocence, The Responsibility of Prosecutors for Presenting Evidences, The Privilege against Self-Incrimination
28
Theophilopoulos, Constantine. "The right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination :." Thesis, 2001. http://hdl.handle.net/10500/16186.
Full text
29
Tsai, Chen-Yu, and 蔡鎮宇. "The Administrative Obligation of Disclosure and the Right against Self-incrimination." Thesis, 2007. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/86136142012949434922.
Full textAbstract:
碩士國立臺灣大學
法律學研究所
95
The right against self-incrimination is a universal human right acknowledged in every modern country ruled by law. Its root can be traced back to the Bible, which has the nature of Natural Law. It is believed that the origin of the right against self-incrimination was to fight against the oath ex officio, and the oath ex officio was abolished because it infringed the natural human right (“freeborn right”). Owing to humans’ innate rationality, there is no modern country that does not recognize the right against self-incrimination as a basic human right. Basic human rights should be unconditionally protected by the Constitution. Based on the supremacy of the Constitution, all measures taken by the government should not violate the Constitution. No matter how the government infringes people’s constitutional right, the infringement should be forbidden by the Constitution as long as it violates the core value of the constitutional right. Thus, since the right against self-incrimination is included in the Constitution, all kinds of infringement of the right against self-incrimination should also be forbidden. In the field of administrative law, people are obligated to disclose information to fulfill the “regulatory purpose”. They are required to report, produce documents, and answer questions or they will be fined and imprisoned. Although “laws of regulatory purpose” are not directly related to the right against self-incrimination, this right must be sacrificed to the “regulatory purpose” in many cases such as the Hit and Run Statute. However, what is the “regulatory purpose” (or regulatory interest)? Is it possible to completely separate it from the criminal purpose? How do we deal with the conflict between them? This thesis refers to the cases ruled by the United States Federal Supreme Court and argues that the five elements of the right against self-incrimination – No person, shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness, against himself – should be used to effectively define the obligation of disclosure in the field of administrative law, whether it has the regulatory purpose or not. In other words, people can invoke their right against self-incrimination to refuse to disclose incriminating information when they are asked to do so by the criminal law or administrative law. Some may argue that the compulsory self-report system of the administrative law may totally fall apart if people are allowed to invoke the right against self-incrimination when they face the legal compulsion to disclose incriminating information. However, based on the element, “to be a witness”, mentioned above, the obligation to present documents will not be protected by the right against self-incrimination. Therefore, most conditions within the compulsory self-report scheme such as the disclosure obligation of finances in Security and Exchange Act or the property disclosure obligation of government officials are not affected by the right again self-incrimination. Only when the administrative law compels people to testify will the right against self-incrimination be involved. For example, people are requested to answer questions asked by the administrative agency or to notify the police of the automobile accident they involved, which only takes a small part. In addition, this thesis argues that the administrative agency should grant immunity to remove the danger of self-incrimination and compel people to disclose information. The immunity suggested here is not “use and derivative use” immunity but “indirect immunity”, meaning the incriminating information obtained by the administrative agency must not be used by other prosecution-related agency. Under the circumstances, even if people have provided incriminating information for the administrative agency, the prosecution department can still prosecute people with the evidence obtained from legitimate sources wholly independent without proving that it is not derivative evidence. This way the danger of self-incrimination can be removed effectively and the right of investigation by the prosecution department will not be excessively violated. Finally, since the “regulatory purpose” can be fulfilled and the damage to the interest of prosecuting criminals is almost invisible by granting indirect immunity, this thesis asserts that the right against self-incrimination can be invoked when people are under the legal compulsion of the administrative law to disclose information and there is no exception even if the government has a legitimate regulatory purpose. Therefore, in the circumstances that the administrative law compels people to serve as a witness, people should be allowed to invoke their right against self-incrimination to refuse to comply with the obligation until the government grants them indirect immunity.
30
Yang, Chao-chun, and 楊朝鈞. "Administrative Inquisition Apply to thePrivilege against Self-Incrimination?:UsingTax Investigation as an Example." Thesis, 2015. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/q25ngx.
Full textAbstract:
碩士國立高雄大學
政治法律學系碩士班
103
Abstract Privilege against self-Incrimination is accepted universally by countries that suit the rule of law, and the basic principle of criminal procedure. Therefore, criminal investigation should follow this principle certainly. But there is a question that administrative inquisition apply to theprivilege against self-incrimination or not? If the answer is not, there is a flaw of the privilege against self-incrimination. Because when administrative organ does the inquisiton, they often touch the criminal evidence. In addition, if the administrative inquisition does not touch criminal evidence, it apply to the privilege against self-incrimination or not? If the answer is not, is there a flaw of theprivilege against self-incrimination? These are difficult issues in academia and practices. First of all, this study will introduce the orgin, development, foundation and meaning of the privilege against self-incrimination. Secondly, this study will introduce the meaning of administrative inquisition, and clarify the difference between it and criminal investigation, in order to analyze the main question of this study. Finally, this study will use tax investigation as an example,in order to discuss how does administrative inquisiton apply to the privilege against self-incrimination. This study hope to realize the purpose of the privilege against self-incrimination further.
31
Hsieh, Kuan-Cheng, and 謝冠正. "The limitation of a party’s cooperative obligation in administrative investigation： Focus on “Privilege against Self-Incrimination”." Thesis, 2006. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/06041706618799657762.
Full textAbstract:
碩士國立臺北大學
法學系
95
In order to execute kinds of administrative law as well as regulation, ensure that people would obey the concerning rules, and guarantee that the governmental agencies would perform their authorities properly, modern governments have to conduct administrative inspections or investigations to collect information. These inspections are essential part of administrative law. In hope that an administrative investigation can conform to the principles of rule of law and protection individuals rights, this paper aims at structuring the legal system of collecting information. First to ascertain the concept of administrative investigation, and then by adopting the methodology of comparative law, this study observes and learns from cases related to the privilege against self-incrimination applied in administrative procedure. Finally, the conclusion is about the relation between administrative investigation and the privilege against self-incrimination.
32
Chang, Yen-chen, and 張晏晟. "A Study on the Privilege against Self-Incrimination and the Crime of Possessing Property without Reasonable Explanation." Thesis, 2012. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/42402940224428694828.
Full textAbstract:
碩士東吳大學
法律學系
100
The right against self-incrimination is a universal human right admitted in every modern country. Based on this rule, all measures taken by the government should not violate the right against self-incrimination. Thus, even the goal to stop corruptive crime is extremely important to the government. All kinds of infringement of the right against self-incrimination should be forbidden during criminal investment procedure. According to the Crime of Possessing Property without Reasonable Explanation, the defendant during criminal investment procedure, are obligated to disclose information and prove the process of property increasing is reasonable. Otherwise the defendant will be accused for not fulfilling this obligation. However, this code could be seemed to violate the right against self-incrimination. This thesis refers to the current code §§ 6-1 and 10 of corruptive crime and examining these two codes with the right against self-incrimination and other important principles in criminal procedure law, such as The Presumption of Innocence. In conclusion, this thesis asserts that the right against self-incrimination can be invoked when people are under the obligation of the Crime of Possessing Property without Reasonable Explanation to disclose information, and there should be no exception even if the government has a legitimate regulatory purpose. Therefore, the current code §§ 6-1 and 10 of corruptive crime should be deleted or to restrict the application in the future.
33
Švásta, Pavel. "Zákaz sebeobvinění právnické osoby v řízení o správním deliktu." Doctoral thesis, 2019. http://www.nusl.cz/ntk/nusl-393678.
Full textAbstract:
This thesis deals with the topic of privilege against self-incrimination of legal entity in administrative proceedings and in offence proceedings. The following reasons led me to the choice of this topic. First of all, it is a multidisciplinary topic involving criminal law, criminal administrative law, constitutional law, and private law, especially the regulation of legal entities. Furthermore, with the exemption of decision-making praxis of courts, and a few academic essays, attention hasn't been paid to this topic in its complexity. For this reason, this topic has offered novelty and the possibility of observing the progressive development of judicature, especially the decision-making praxis of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic as well as the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic and the European Court of Human Rights. The first part deals with the historical origins of privilege against self-incrimination and development of the criminal proceedings over the centuries. Special attention is paid to the fact, that privilege against self-incrimination was originally part of criminal proceedings until the 12th century, when this privilege was removed from the canon law and replaced with the inquisitional process which was linked with the...
34
HsuChengHung and 徐政宏. "A Study on Body Examination In Criminal Procedural—Focusing On The Analysis Of The Privilege Against Self-incrimination." Thesis, 2012. http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/282mgt.
Full text
35
Ntwana, Samkelo Callaway. "Taxation of illegal income: the duty to disclose income delivered from illegal activity and the constitutional right against self-incrimination." Thesis, 2011. http://hdl.handle.net/10500/5679.
Full text
36
Mtwana, Samkelo Callaway. "Taxation of illegal income: the duty to disclose income delivered from illegal activity and the constitutional right against self-incrimination." Thesis, 2011. http://hdl.handle.net/10500/5679.
Full text
37
Swanepoel, Johanna Petronella. "Aspekte van aanwysings in die strafproses : en bewysreg." Diss., 1992. http://hdl.handle.net/10500/16155.
Full textAbstract:
Text in AfrikaansBeskermi ng van fundamente le mense- en konst itus i one le regte het moderne regstelsels tot herbesinning oor tradisionele bewysregreels rakende die toelaatbaarheid van getuienis aangaande verklarings van 'n beskuldigde en die privilegie teen selfinkriminasie gedwing. Om die omvang van die stroming op die kwessie van getuienis oor aanwysings wat op 'n onvrywillige of onbehoorlike wyse bekom is vas te stel, word 'n analise gedoen van artikel 218 van die Strafproseswet, wat fokus op die toelaatbaarheid van getuienis oor aanwysings en getuienis wat as gevolg van aanwysings verkry is. Die Appelhofbeslissing in S v Sheehama oor die toelaatbaarheid van getuienis omtrent gedwonge aanwysings, word gesien as die beliggaming van 'n nuwe filosofie rakende die beskuldigde se privilegie teen selfinkriminasie. Die gevolgtrekking word gemaak dat die bepalings van artikel 218(2) onbillik is, 'n skending van die beskuldigde se privilegie teen selfinkriminasie tot gevolg het en herroep moet word. Voorstelle vir regshervorming word in hierdie verband gemaak.
The protection of fundamenta 1 human and con st itut i ona 1 rights has caused modern legal systems to re-evaluate traditional rules of evidence regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning statements of an accused and the privilege against self-incrimination. To determine the extent of such a re-evaluation on evidence of paintings-out which are involuntarily or improperly obtained, an analysis of section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act is undertaken. It focuses on the admissibility of evidence of paintings-out and evidence obtained in consequence of pointingsout. The decision of the Appellate Division in S v Sheehama on the admissibility of evidence of pointing-outs, obtained by means of compulsion, is seen as an embodiment of a new philosophy towards an accused's privilege against nondiscrimination. It is concluded that the provisions of section 218(2) are unfair, infringe on an accused's privilege against self-incrimination and should be repealed. Proposals for law reform are made in this regard.
Criminology and Security Science
LL.M.
38
Čupková, Kateřina. "Zásada nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare." Master's thesis, 2019. http://www.nusl.cz/ntk/nusl-397082.
Full textAbstract:
Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare principle Abstract The thesis deals with the nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare principle, which represents one of the fundamental procedural rights in criminal proceedings. The European Court of Human Rights considers it an inseparable part of the right to a just trial. Especially considering the problems arising in connection to interpretation and application of he said principle, the thesis tries to _ the most problematic areas of the principle's application and the different opinions as to what it entails. The first chapter contains the history of the principle's application, both on the European continent in civil law and in common law in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The second chapter summarizes the evolution of rulings of the European Court for Human Rights. Attention is paid to the relation between the nemo tenetur principle and the right to a fair trial contained in the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and also to the relation o other right contained in the same treaty, especially focusing on freedom from torture in order to obtain an evidence of a criminal act. The third chapter summarizes the Czech legislation on the topic, both on Constitutional level - especially focusing on those articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and...
39
Martins, Ana Sofia Carneiro. "Sobre a recolha de autógrafos do arguido: nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare?" Master's thesis, 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/1822/51785.
Full textAbstract:
Dissertação de mestrado em Direito JudiciárioNos tempos medievais, onde imperava o processo penal inquisitório, o arguido era considerado um meio de prova, sendo obrigado a declarar contra si mesmo e a jurar verdade absoluta perante o tribunal, sob pena de ser severamente punido. A confissão do arguido constituía probatio probatissima e era suficiente para que nela se fundasse a condenação, sem que fosse concebível prova em contrário ou qualquer possibilidade de recurso. É na transição do processo penal inquisitório para um de cunho acusatório que surge a primeira conceção moderna do privilégio contra a autoincriminação, onde se pretendia combater os abusos provocados pelos institutos até então vigentes e que transformavam o arguido num instrumento do processo e da sua autoincriminação. Com a passagem para o processo penal acusatório, o arguido deixou de ser visto como um objeto do processo, para passar a ser considerado um sujeito processual, onde lhe são conferidos direitos e deveres processuais. Um desses direitos, cujo estudo é tema central nesta dissertação, consiste no brocardo latino nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare, onde se permite ao arguido que não contribua para a sua autoincriminação. Mas será que este princípio é aplicável quando, em sede de inquérito, estamos perante uma diligência de prova onde se pede ao arguido que escreva pelo seu próprio punho elementos que depois serão alvo de perícia à letra, podendo os mesmos levar à sua incriminação? Ou haverá, aqui, uma limitação ao princípio nemo tenetur? E se houver, com base em que critérios? Será que a recusa do arguido em colaborar na referida diligência é ilegítima e pode ser sancionada com uma cominação em crime de desobediência? São estas e outras questões que procuraremos responder, num estudo sincrónico da doutrina com a jurisprudência e legislação nacional e internacional.
In medieval times, where the inquisitorial criminal proceedings prevailed, the defendant was considered a mean of proof, being forced to testify against himself and to swear the absolute truth before the court, otherwise he would be severely punished. The confession of the defendant constituted probatio probatissima and it was sufficient for him to found a conviction, without being conceivable evidence to the contrary or any possibility of appeal. The first modern conception of the privilege against self-incrimination was the transition from the inquisitorial criminal procedure to an accusatory one, where the aim was to combat the abuses provoked by the institutes that had hitherto been in force and which made the accused an instrument of the process and self-incrimination. With the change to accusatory criminal proceedings, the defendant is no longer seen as an object of the process, to be start being considered a procedural subject, where procedural rights and duties are conferred. One of these rights, whose study is the central theme in this dissertation, consists of the Latin script nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare, where the defendant is allowed not to contribute to his self-incrimination. However, will this principle be applied when, in the course of an investigation, we are faced with a due diligence where the defendant is asked to write by his own hand elements that will later be skillfully analyzed, and may lead to his incrimination? Or is there a limitation to nemo tenetur principle? And if so, based on what criteria? Is the defendant's refusal to cooperate in this proceeding to be unlawful and may be punished with a crime of disobedience? We will try to answer, this and other issues in a synchronic study of the doctrine with the jurisprudence and national and international legislation.
40
Mialon, Hugo Marc Stinchcombe Maxwell McAfee R. Preston. "Three essays in the economics of law and language." 2004. http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/2092/mialonhm042.pdf.
Full text
41
Lopes, Joana Paula Correia. "Os (novos) métodos científicos de investigação criminal e os direitos fundamentais do arguido: reflexões críticas." Master's thesis, 2020. http://hdl.handle.net/1822/76469.
Full textAbstract:
Dissertação de mestrado em Direito Judiciário (Direitos processuais e Organização Judiciária)A progressiva introdução, desenvolvimento e utilização de metodologias científicas de identificação humana no âmbito da investigação criminal adensa o universo da problemática acerca da preservação da identidade pessoal e genética. A par de uma «cientifização» do direito, observa-se a substituição dos tradicionais métodos de investigação criminal pelo notável poder discriminatório da tecnologia de ADN ao serviço da ciência forense. A criação de uma base de dados informatizada de perfis genéticos para fins de identificação criminal coloca uma série de problemas jurídico-penais que se inscrevem diretamente na esfera de proteção dos direitos fundamentais do arguido, sejam direitos pessoais, como a reserva da intimidade da vida privada e a integridade pessoal, sejam garantias processuais de defesa, como o direito à não autoincriminação e a presunção da sua inocência. São estes os pontos que enformam a discussão sobre a compatibilidade entre a realização de justiça num contexto de processo penal democrático e a figuração do arguido enquanto meio de prova contra si mesmo, tendo em conta as exigências de validade do princípio nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare. Tudo isto a aferir-se em função da dimensão da margem de liberdade autodeterminativa ressalvada ao arguido enquanto sujeito processual e figura central do processo penal.
The progressive introduction, development and use of cientific methodologies of criminal identification thickens the universe of problems regarding the preservation of personal and genetic identity. In paraller to the «scientification» of Law, we find the replacement of traditional methods of criminal investigation, now obsolete, for DNA technology’s remarkable discriminating power at the service of forensic science. The foundation of a computerized genetic database for the purposes of criminal identification raises a number of criminal legal issues that enrol directly within the scope of protecting the defendant’s fundamental rights, being personal rights, such as the right to privacy and personal integrity, being procedural defense guarantees, as the privilege against self-incrimination and his presumption of innocence. These are the matters that frame the discussion on compatibility between the attainment of justice herein a democratic criminal procedure setting and the defendant’s depiction as a method of proof against himself, considering the lawfulness standards demanded by the nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare principle. All of the considering to be assessed in relation to the amplitude of the defendant’s margin of self-determinating freedom, as a procedural subject and central figure within the criminal procedure.
42
Soares, Nélia Carina da Silva. "O Princípio Nemo Tenetur Se Ipsum Accusare e a obrigação de sujeição a exames." Master's thesis, 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/10316/85735.
Full textAbstract:
Dissertação de Mestrado em Direito: Especialidade em Ciências Juridico-Forenses apresentada à Faculdade de DireitoApesar de o princípio nemo tenetur se assumir como um direito fundamental que é assegurado àqueles que vêm dirigido contra si um processo penal, há que reconhecer a existência de uma sensível dificuldade em se estabelecer o seu alcance e limites. Efetivamente, é no confronto entre este princípio com a imposição da obrigação de sujeição a exames aos indivíduos que se suscitam maiores dificuldades. Sendo certo que o indivíduo enquanto objeto de prova não deixa de ser um sujeito detentor de personalidade, identidade, interesses e vontades, o desafio para o processo penal consiste em não transformar este indivíduo num simples objeto do procedimento criminal. Considerando que o processo penal tem como finalidade a descoberta da verdade material, facto é, que esta não pode ser obtida a todo o custo, tendo de resultar de um processo penal que respeite os direitos fundamentais das pessoas envolvidas no processo. Deste modo, a presente dissertação tem como objetivo primordial esclarecer quais os limites e restrições que pode comportar este princípio, tendo em conta o regime de restrições constitucionalmente previstas no ordenamento jurídico português, principalmente a necessária aplicação do princípio da necessidade e da proporcionalidade.
Even considering that the nemo tenetur principle has been assumed as a fundamental right ensured to those who have got themselves criminally sued, the demanding task regarding the analysis of its own limits should be fulfilled. Effectively, it is on the confrontation between this principle and the individual’s obligation to be compelled on examination that the greatest difficulties arise. As an object of proof, an individual has his own personality, identity, interests and will, and it is challenging to the whole criminal procedure not to assume this individual as a simple object. Whereas that, the criminal procedure has the material truth as its main goal, the fact is that the truth cannot be obtained at all cost, as the criminal procedure must respect the fundamental rights of those who are involved in it. Therefore, the main goal of the present thesis is to clarify the limits and restrictions which could be supported by this principle, considering the constitution’s restrictions regime predicted in the Portuguese legal system, and above all, the required application of both necessity and proportionality principles.
43
Morais, André Filipe Rosa. "Eficácia da Investigação e Tutela de Direitos Fundamentais: O Dever Legal de Cooperação contra o Direito à Não Autoincriminação." Master's thesis, 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/10316/85941.
Full textAbstract:
Dissertação de Mestrado em Direito apresentada à Faculdade de DireitoA presente dissertação versa sobre o conflito entre o interesse na máxima eficácia da investigação e a tutela de direitos fundamentais, concretizada na compressão do direito à não autoincriminação pelo dever legal de cooperação.Em primeiro lugar, importará então analisar o direito à não autoincriminação ao lado de outras garantias de defesa que lhe são próximas e tangenciais.Tal dever traduzir-se-á no tratamento dos visados como um meio de prova contra si mesmos, no entendimento que se defende.Uma vez que são cada vez mais as áreas em que se recorre à consagração de deveres dos cidadãos colaborarem com as autoridades, torna-se importante procurar perceber qual e se é possível um ponto ótimo de harmonização entre o dever de cooperação e o nemo tenetur, para que este último não seja irremediavelmente sacrificado nem o primeiro deixe de ser operativo.Esse exercício implicou inevitavelmente a aferição e o estudo da conformidade constitucional da consagração de um dever legal de cooperação, nos moldes e termos com que tem sido feito em diversas áreas.Por fim, uma vez que este problema tem emergido em novas e problemáticas áreas, torna-se imprescindível perceber de que forma aquele ponto ótimo pode ter préstimo na consagração de concretas soluções que permitam minimizar o problema em estudo.Assim, resultará da presente dissertação uma proposta de decisão para o julgador que se veja confrontado com um caso onde emerja a tensão entre o dever de cooperação e o direito à não autoincriminação.
This thesis relates to the conflict between the interest on the investigation’s maximum effectiveness and the fundamental rights’ safeguard, as it is carried in the privilege against self-incrimination’s compression by the cooperation duty.Firstly, it will be important to examine the privilege against self-incrimination in relation to defense rights that are close to it.Such compression will reflect on the treatment awarded to defendants as a mean of evidence against themselves, in accordance with the stand which is sustained. There are more and more areas which appeal to cooperation duties which oblige citizens to assist authorities.Such point inevitably involved the constitutional analysis of the accordance between the cooperation duty and the constitutional rules regarding fundamental rights on criminal procedure's matters. Such analyses beared in mind the cooperation duty's features in the several areas which set it.Therefore, it is important to figure out which and if it is possible to reach a level of convergence between the cooperation duty and nemo tenetur, so that the latter is not inevitably crushed and the first still stands enforceable.Thus, this thesis will offer a suggested path of decision for the ruler which faces a case where arises a conflict between the cooperation duty and the right agains self-incrimination.At last, since this problem has occurred in new and problematic areas, we must understand how such level of convergence is able to help and find new solutions to mitigate this problem.
44
Oliveira, Andressa Marques Freitas. "A compatibilização dos deveres de informação e colaboração com o princípio da não autoinculpação no processo contraordenacional e sancionador no domínio da regulação e supervisão financeira." Master's thesis, 2020. http://hdl.handle.net/10316/92802.
Full textAbstract:
Dissertação de Mestrado em Ciências Jurídico-Forenses apresentada à Faculdade de DireitoO princípio a que nos propomos abordar (nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare ou princípio da não autoinculpação) apresenta-se com bastante relevância naquilo que é o processo penal e contraordenacional português, designadamente enquanto mecanismo apto à garantia do direito de defesa atribuído ao arguido.Efetivamente, podemos afirmar que o mesmo é verdadeiramente um baluarte do sistema penal nacional, uma vez que, privilegiando aquilo que é a liberdade e individualidade da pessoa, rectius, arguido, dispõe que ninguém poderá ser obrigado a fornecer provas que possam contribuir para a sua própria incriminação.Não obstante, da análise dos normativos legais não se retira de forma expressa a existência de uma norma que o preveja. Estamos, assim, perante um princípio constitucional não positivado, mas unanimemente aceite.Ora, sendo aceite e válido no domínio contraordenacional, será necessário fazer a sua ligação com os deveres de colaboração das entidades reguladas, o que poderá implicar a sua restrição, bem como levar a que os últimos prevaleçam no processo e perante a autoridade reguladora.Concretamente, a análise que se propõe no presente estudo visa concluir em que termos o nemo tenetur valerá no âmbito da regulação financeira, podendo obstar a que as autoridades reguladoras possam recolher documentos e utilizá-los em processo contra o próprio arguido.Palavras-chave: Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare; direito à não autoincriminação; dever de colaboração; processo contraordenacional; processo sancionatório; setor financeiro; direitos fundamentais.
The principle we propose to address (nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare or privilege against self-incrimination) presents itself with considerable relevance in what is the Portuguese criminal and administrative procedure, namely while as a mechanism capable of guaranteeing the right of defense attributed to the accused.Effectively, we can affirm that the same principle is a true bulwark of the national criminal system, once, privileging what is the freedom and individuality of the person, rectius, defendant, provides that no one can be forced to provide evidence that may contribute to their own incrimination.However, from the analysis of the legal framework, we cannot withdraw the existence of norm that expressly provides this principle. We are, therefore, against a constitutional principle that is not positive, but unanimously accepted.Well, being accepted and valid in the administrative domain, it will be necessary to make its connection with the collaboration duties of the regulated entities, which may imply their its restriction, as well as causing the latter to prevail in the process before the regulatory authority.Concretely, the analysis proposed in the present study aims to conclude in which terms the nemo tenetur is valid in the scope of the financial regulation, which may prevent the regulatory authorities from collecting documents and using them in the procedure against the own defendant.Keywords: Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare; privilege against self-incrimination; collaboration duty; administrative procedure; sanctioning procedure; financial sector; fundamental rights.
45
Santos, Vítor Manuel Neves Veiga. "A prova obtida em procedimento de inspeção tributária a uma sociedade constituí uma ofensa ao nemo tenetur? Análise na esteira dos acórdãos do Tribunal Constitucional 340/2013 e 298/2019." Master's thesis, 2022. http://hdl.handle.net/10316/99797.
Full textAbstract:
Dissertação de Mestrado em Ciências Jurídico-Forenses apresentada à Faculdade de DireitoConsiderando que sou funcionário da Administração Tributária e Aduaneira executando, no meu dia a dia, as funções de inspetor tributário e aduaneiro (ITA) e de órgão de polícia criminal (OPC), considero que a definição de um tema teria que passar pela ponte entre o direito fiscal e o direito penal. Para além do referido, a recente evolução da jurisprudência constitucional verificada nos Acórdãos 340/2013 e 298/2019 do Tribunal Constitucional relativos à controvertida matéria do nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare quando aplicado à prova em matéria criminal fiscal e, em especial, a partir de quando se considera que no decurso de uma inspeção tributária o sujeito passivo pode invocar este princípio constitucional para recusar a apresentação de elementos que o autoincriminem. Ficou também implícita a questão de saber se a proteção que o princípio nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare dá, vale de igual forma para as pessoas coletivas? Quais as condições necessárias para que a inspeção tributária, atuando na sua dupla vertente de órgão inspetivo e de órgão de polícia criminal, após início do processo de inquérito criminal recolha validamente prova no processo? Pode durante o procedimento de inspeção o sujeito passivo invocar o “direito ao silêncio” não entregando elementos que o possam incriminar? Em que circunstâncias se poderá considerar que impende sobre a administração tributária a obrigação de proceder à suspensão do procedimento de inspeção com a respetiva instauração de inquérito crime em face dos indícios que tenha conhecimento no decurso, atentos ao limite negativo de incriminação?O trabalho a que nos propomos, vai ser desenvolvido confrontando a jurisprudência referida com a evolução verificada na doutrina sobre esta matéria, objetivando chegar a uma conclusão defensável à luz do direito sobre a matéria controvertida.
Considering that I am an employee of the Tax and Customs Administration, performing, in my daily life, the functions of tax and customs inspector (ITA) and criminal police body (OPC), I believe that the definition of a topic would have to go through the bridge between tax law and criminal law.In addition to the above, the recent evolution of constitutional jurisprudence verified in Judgments 340/2013 and 298/2019 of the Constitutional Court concerning the controversial matter of nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare when applied to evidence in tax criminal matters and, in particular, from when it is considered that, during a tax inspection, the taxable person can invoke this constitutional principle to refuse to present elements that incriminate him/herself.The question of whether the protection that the principle nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare gives is equally valid for legal persons was also implicit? What are the necessary conditions for the tax inspection, acting in its dual aspect of an inspection body and a criminal police body, after the beginning of the criminal investigation process to validly collect evidence in the process? Can the taxable person invoke the “right to silence” during the inspection procedure, not providing elements that could incriminate him? Under what circumstances can it be considered that the tax administration has the obligation to suspend the inspection procedure with the respective initiation of a criminal investigation in light of the evidence that it becomes aware of during the course, bearing in mind the negative limit of criminality?The work we propose will be developed by comparing the referred jurisprudence with the evolution verified in the doctrine on this matter, aiming to reach a defensible conclusion in light of the law on the disputed matter.
46
Ribeiro, Gisela Santos. "A justiça em laboratório: reflexões em torno da base de dados de perfis de ADN." Master's thesis, 2020. http://hdl.handle.net/1822/73295.
Full textAbstract:
Dissertação de mestrado em Direito Judiciário (Direitos Processuais e Organização Jurídica)Atualmente a ciência oferece hodiernas técnicas que permitem conhecer muito a partir de pouco, mormente a determinação da identidade genética através do ácido desoxirribonucleico, que é considerado um dos métodos mais revolucionários da Genética Molecular moderna. O ácido desoxirribonucleico é um componente químico do núcleo celular que define o código genético único e imutável de cada ser humano. O presente trabalho de investigação revela o estudo sobre o contributo da aplicação das técnicas de análise do ADN para fins de identificação civil e de investigação criminal, sendo que este último configura o âmbito ao qual daremos maior enfoque. Não obstante as inegáveis virtualidades da análise de ADN, a sua utilização com desígnios criminais, bem como as bases de dados de perfis genéticos suscitam distintos e intrincados problemas, que instam ser solucionados, sob pena de saírem prejudicadas as finalidades essenciais do processo penal, designadamente a proteção dos direitos fundamentais.
Nowadays science offers new techniques that allow us to know a lot from a little, especially the determination of genetic identity through deoxyribonucleic acid, which is considered one of the most revolutionary methods of modern molecular genetics. Deoxyribonucleic acid is a chemical component of the cell nucleus that defines the unique and immutable genetic code of every human being. The present research reveals the contribution of the application of DNA analysis techniques for civil identification and criminal investigation purposes, the latter sets the scope to which we will focus more. Although the undeniable virtues of DNA analysis, their use for criminal purposes as well as genetic profiling databases create some distinct and complex problems that need to be addressed, otherwise the main purposes of criminal proceedings could be undermined, namely the protection of fundamental rights.
47
Lopes, Ana Isabel Saraiva. "A Conciliação do Nemo Tenetur Se Ipsum Accusare com o Dever de Identificação do Arguido: Apreciação crítica à luz da Constituição da República Portuguesa." Master's thesis, 2021. http://hdl.handle.net/10316/95741.
Full textAbstract:
Dissertação de Mestrado em Ciências Jurídico-Forenses apresentada à Faculdade de DireitoO presente estudo tem como objetivo apresentar um contributo para a resolução dos casos em que, no âmbito de determinado processo-crime no qual sejam investigados crimes de usurpação de identidade ou de falsificação de documento e seja elemento essencial dos mesmos e facto objeto de imputação a identidade do arguido, este se depara ab initio com o dever de identificação, entrando em conflito com o direito constitucional à não autoincriminação e, mais concretamente, com o direito ao silêncio. Cumpre assim analisar se, nestes casos, poderá o arguido excecionalmente remeter-se ao silêncio, não revelando o seu nome, filiação, freguesia e concelho de naturalidade, data de nascimento, estado civil, profissão, residência e local de trabalho, cumprindo ao tribunal a aquisição destes conhecimentos através de outras fontes ou proceder ao julgamento sem eles ou se, ao invés, os interesses de ordem coletiva, na perseguição da justiça e na busca da verdade material se sobrepõem sempre e independentemente da violação do direito à não autoincriminação do arguido, obrigando-o a cumprir escrupulosamente com o dever de identificação prescrito na lei, ainda que tal comine na imediata apreensão para o processo da prática do crime por parte do visado.Esta discussão a que nos propomos, terá como finalidade a apreciação da constitucionalidade da imposição do dever de identificação ao arguido naqueles tipos de crime em concreto. Para tanto, serão relevadas as soluções da legislação nacional e os valores basilares do nosso ordenamento jurídico de índole constitucional, e analisadas as soluções apontadas pela jurisprudência e pela doutrina sobre esta temática.
The purpose of this study is to purchase a contribution to the resolution of cases in which, within the scope of a criminal process in which are investigated crimes of identity theft or document forgery and the defendant’s identity is an essential element of them, he is forced with the duty of identification, generating a conflict with the constitutional right against self-incrimination and, mora specifically, with the legal right to silence. It is therefore necessary to analyse whether, in these cases, the defendant may exceptionally remain in silence, without revealing his name, affiliation, place of birth, marital status, profession, residence and place of work, complying with the court, falling to the court the acquisition of this knowledge through other sources or proceed to trial without them or, instead, the interests of collective order, in the pursuit of justice and the pursuit of material truth always overlap and regardless of the violation of the right against self-incrimination of the defendant, forcing him with this duty of identification prescribed by the law, even though this implicates the immediate perception, on the process, that the crime was committed by the defendant.The discussion that we propose, aims the analysis of the constitutionality of the imposition of the duty to identify the accused in those specific types of crimes. The solutions of the national legislation and the basic values of our constitutional legal order will be analysed together with the solutions identified by the jurisprudence and by the doctrine on this subject.
48
Pereira, Estrela Vanessa Lucas. "O ente coletivo e o princípio nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare." Master's thesis, 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/10362/56421.
Full textAbstract:
This dissertation deals with nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare principle and its importance to the legal person when accused. The first point refers to nemo tenetur principle and its corollaries. In a second point, we are going to investigate the contours of its application to the legal person. The application of the right to silence to legal person involves several questions that hasn't a procedurally answers, but which raise complexities regarding the extent of this right within the legal person.
The same happens to the right against self-incrimination, which must be combined with the self-incrimination of the legal person itself and with the self-incrimination of the other organ owners and members of the legal person.
Finally, this dissertation also deals with the exceptions at nemo tenetur principle, embodied in the duties of collaboration, especially the extra-procedural ones and those who appears outside the procedural collaboration that is required to the defendant in criminal proceedings. It is therefore necessary to examine the exercise of the right to silence and the right to self-incrimination by the concerned, which is the subject of collaborative duties in the supervision of economic activities.
The purpose of this dissertation is to demarcate the complexities associated with the exercise of procedural prorogations by the legal person, taking into account its organic and organizational structure. We also aim to investigate the maintenance of the duties of collaboration when there is a suspicion against the concerned, as well as the contours of the elements brought by the concerned, which can be used for the duties of collaboration in a subsequent sanctioning process, especially a criminal one.A presente dissertação versa sobre o princípio nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare e a sua aplicação ao ente coletivo quando este esteja sob a veste de arguido. O primeiro enfoque refere-se ao princípio nemo tenetur e aos seus corolários. Num segundo plano, averiguamos dos contornos da sua aplicação ao ente coletivo. A aplicação do direito ao silêncio ao ente coletivo implica várias respostas que não estão consagradas a nível processual mas que suscitam complexidades relativamente à amplitude deste direito no seio do ente coletivo. O mesmo quanto ao direito contra a auto-incriminação, que deve ser conjugado com a auto-incriminação do próprio ente coletivo e com a auto-incriminação dos demais titulares de órgãos e membros do ente coletivo. Por fim, a presente dissertação versa ainda sobre as exceções ao princípio nemo tenetur, consubstanciadas nos deveres de colaboração, principalmente, os extraprocessuais. Aqueles que surgem numa esfera exterior à colaboração processual que é exigida ao arguido de um processo penal. Por isso, importa analisar o exercício do direito ao silêncio e do direito contra a auto-incriminação pelo visado, sujeito a deveres de colaboração no âmbito da supervisão das atividades económicas. Como objetivo a alcançar, pretendemos deslindar as complexidades associadas ao exercício de prorrogativas processuais pelo ente coletivo, tendo em conta a sua orgânica e a sua estrutura organizativa. Visamos ainda averiguar da manutenção dos deveres de colaboração quando haja uma suspeita contra o visado, bem como dos contornos com que podem ser utilizados os elementos trazidos pelos visados pelos deveres de colaboração num subsequente processo sancionatório, principalmente, se de cariz criminal.
49
Afonso, Carlos José de Aguiar Moniz. "A sexta alteração à diretiva de troca de informações : a comunicação obrigatória de esquemas de planeamento fiscal e o seu impacto nos direitos fundamentais." Master's thesis, 2019. http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/30371.
Full textAbstract:
A nossa dissertação versa sobre a sexta alteração à Diretiva de Troca de Informações. Tal alteração tem na sua base a Ação 12 do BEPS, através da qual a OCDE propõe um novo paradigma de relacionamento entre administrações fiscais e contribuintes marcado por uma grande transparência. Após um exame do respetivo regime, a dissertação centrar-se-á na análise do impacto do mesmo nos direitos fundamentais das pessoas obrigadas à comunicação, nomeadamente no que concerne à certeza jurídica, ao direito ao aconselhamento jurídico e ao direito à não autoincriminação. Em nossa opinião, e do ponto de vista de um juízo de concordância prática, o fim da tutela do sistema fiscal deverá prevalecer diante pontuais e ultrapassáveis défices de certeza jurídica. Deve também preponderar sobre o dever de sigilo profissional, exceto quando tal obste ao direito de defesa. Terá necessariamente de ceder perante o direito à não autoincriminação, já que a sua proteção deve ser absoluta. Por fim, a dissertação concluirá com uma análise do anteprojeto que visa transpor a Diretiva, propondo ao legislador português algumas medidas a adotar aquando da sua
implementação.Our thesis discusses the sixth amendment to the Administrative Cooperation Directive. Such amendment is based on BEPS Action 12, in which the OECD proposes new relationship model between tax administrations and taxpayers characterized by increased transparency. After reviewing the regime, the dissertation will be focused on the admendment´s impact on the fundamental rights of the people obliged to mandatory disclosure rules, in particular, in what concerns to legal certainty, the right to legal advice and the privilege against self-incrimination. In our view, and based on a balancing exercise, the safeguard of the tax systems should prevail over ocasional deficits of legal certanty. It should also prevail over professional secrecy, except in what concerns the right to defense. It shall necessarily be adjusted in what concerns the need to fulfil the right not to self-incriminate oneself, since its protection must be comprehensive. We conclude with an analysis of the preliminary draft that intends to transpose the Directive, proposing a number of measures to be taken by the portuguese lawmaker.
50
Mialon, Hugo Marc. "Three essays in the economics of law and language." Thesis, 2004. http://hdl.handle.net/2152/2092.
Full text